| Title |
Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-37 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jelena Savović, Laura Weeks, Jonathan AC Sterne, Lucy Turner, Douglas G Altman, David Moher, Julian PT Higgins |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 25% |
| Canada | 2 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Greece | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 283 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 59 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 12% |
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 55 | 19% |
| Unknown | 58 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 13% |
| Psychology | 29 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 47 | 16% |
| Unknown | 79 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,638,768
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#650
of 2,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,876
of 242,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.